On 16/07/2013 17:18, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > Reinier Olislagers schrieb: >> On 15-7-2013 18:43, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: >>> Reinier Olislagers schrieb: >>>> On 14-7-2013 8:00, Daniel Simoes de Ameida wrote: >>>> Workaround: make your field size as large as the maximum number of UTF8 >>>> bytes you expect. >>> Another workaround: use the appropriate codepage for storing strings in >>> the database, so that all characters are single bytes. With the new >>> (encoded) AnsiStrings this should be quite easy (automatic conversion). >>> >> >> Wouldn't you run into trouble if you want to use a character outside the >> codepage? Presumably OP has enabled UTF8 on the db instead of some other >> codepage on purpose. > > Then the choice of byte sized characters in the DB field is > inappropriate at all. I wonder how the DB or SQL would sort or compare > (LIKE) such strings?
No it isn't. Why shouldn't a user be able to enter Chinese, Greek, Cyrillic and Latin characters? As for sorting etc, there are various unicode collation standards. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
